Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 15, San Bruno 4, Us 4, Antonini 3, Cni 2, The City 2, Wiener 2, Borden 1, Tim Frye 1, Gardner 1, United States 1, Paul 1, Rto 1, Hoffman Avenue 1, Powerpoint 1, Wu 1, Ucsf 1, Bryant 1, Linkage 1, Fresno 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 9, 2012
    7:30 - 8:00pm PST  

7:30pm
the mission. this would allow those limited corner commercial uses to expand and it would only apply in the mission district. we currently, on your recommendation, made those changes in rm-3 districts and rm-4 and it extended to the rto. it passed this week on final reading. the only item up for first reading is an amendment to the administrative code for the port prepayment of the jobs housing linkage fee. this ordinance was not before you, but you instead requested a memo. the ordinance is sponsored by supervisor kim. and it would allow prepayment of that fee when the port makes lands available at less than market rate to the mayor's office of housing. and this week that item passed first reading. the only introduction was the landmarking of the castro street twin peaks tavern, and
7:31pm
it was sponsored by the [speaker not understood] preservation commission. that concludes my report. the zoning administrator did pass along his report to me from the board of appeals. there were two items that he wanted you to know about. the first was an appeal of the zoning administrator letter of determination for 11 01 dolores street and this letter found the subject lot was a legal nonconforming lot for the purpose of the planning code. this determination was upheld. you may be interested, there is currently subdivision appeal of that same property pending before the board of supervisors. the second item before the board of appeals was appeal of the zoning administrator letter of determination for 4 98 hoffman avenue. this letter found that the subject building illegally contained two dwelling units based upon past building permits and special notice of special restriction. this letter of determination also upheld by the board of appeals. so, that concludes both my
7:32pm
reports unless there are questions. >> thank you thev appears to be no questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, tim frye on behalf of the planning department here to share with you the events from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the hpc provided recommendation on the west soma area plan and on supervisor wiener's proposed c-e-q-a appeals amendments. both of these items will be before the commission i believe next week. and the hpc's recommendation on both items will be part of your packet. if you have any questions, though, i'm happy to answer. any questions you have at this time. there are two preservation related announcements, though, i'd like to make. one is that last week, the department supervisor wiener and the triangle neighborhood association hosted the 9th and final community meeting regarding the propose to park plan district.
7:33pm
at the meeting department staff and the supervisor discussed with the neighborhood the most recent amendment to the mills act program, but were reviewed by this commission and the hpc. the review process for certificates of appropriateness, and we were there to answer any questions related to public input and the hearing schedule. one request by the supervisor that the department has recently sent out to all owners and tenants within the community is an online questionnaire so that owners and tenants within the proposed district can base their opinion about the district and it will allow the department and all decision-makers to gauge support or lack thereof at all public hearings. so, when this commission provides its recommendation to the board of supervisors, we will present the findings of that questionnaire to you at that time. the second item i'd like to share with you is on saturday,
7:34pm
november 10th, the department along with sunset expert and author lawyer i ungretti will be hosting a walking tour of the central sunset district. we've received a large number of rocps. the community is very excited for the tour which will focus primarily on the history of the sunset district how it was transformed from 1925 to 1950. this walking tour is a way for us to kickoff the community events that are going to be happening in the early part of 2013 where we will be sharing the survey results of an architectural survey that was funded by the state office of historic preservation. -- of this general area. we'll share with you the historic context statement and the results of that survey once they're completed * . but in case you are interested, the location for the tour will gather at the corner of 36th avenue and kirkham street at 2:00 p.m. and again that's on
7:35pm
november 10th of this month. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. appears to be no questions. >> commissioners, that will place you on item 10, commerce and industry inventory 2011, informational presentation. there is no action required on this item. >> i can make it work. >> very good. got the powerpoint, too. my name -- good afternoon, commissioners. my name is scott edmondson. i work with the information and analysis group in city-wide policy division of the planning department. [speaker not understood], information analysis group. and is this up? what i'm going to do today is review the commerce and industry report you have in your packet. >> if you can speak a little
7:36pm
bit closer in the mic. there you go, thanks. >> this is the 18th edition. it's been around for awhile. you've seen it often. and that data is through the calendar year 2011. as you know, it covers a range of demographic and economic items from populations from employment to monetary transactions and building activity. there are two sets of goals. a short term goal to more vied land use and economic data and make that available to community groups, businesses and private public agencies. and then there is a long-term goal which is to establish a consistent time series of data which can actually be used for research and analysis, compile some background information and use that for updating the commerce and industry element of the general plan. this year we have a new format. the first section is an about section which basically
7:37pm
describes this new format and provides a little basic information on the data and method that will be useful for the summary sections. and then there is an information graphic highlight, which you can see a clip of under building permit there in the lower right corner. provide key findings and simple graphics. that is going to be available as a stand alone document, five pages or so. the finding section of the seeing aye has been expanded this year [speaker not understood]. it summarizes the main points of the data and the methods. and then what you traditionally have found in the cni in terms of the table and the text discussion has been put into an appendix which constitutes most of the document. and also describes the methodology in more detail. so, the updating effort we're doing, we hope to provide the data in the cni electronically by summer of 2013. we get a little rain out there.
7:38pm
this isn't the first time. we're also exploring, as we do the annual update, other ways to update the cni. basically for the changing economic land use and sustainability issues the city faces. obviously your thoughts are welcome. you can e-mail them to me or call me or even include them if you complete the department's cni user survey which is on survey monkey. to the highlights, for this year you can see that there are a couple key components, have varied over the last 10 yearses we've come off of the dot-com boom at the end of 20th century. and went into the housing boom that peaked in 2008. and you can see that jobs reflect those. building permits reflect those very -- a little more substantially, especially in
7:39pm
the last couple years. you can see construction spending which is actually kind of a measure of the estimated construction value of acting building permits. kind of a crazy concept. it's kind of a measure of construction spending. varies even more widely than the other two components. a quick look at the data or detailed look of the data indicates that san francisco's economic recovery continued in 2011. jobs were up 2%. they're at 5 69,000 jobs at the end of 2011. unemployment was down to 8.6% from 9.5%. total wages earned city-wide were up 8% to 45 billion. this construction spending or cost estimate number was at 3.4 billion, which is up 52% over
7:40pm
the year previously. taxable sales was up. city revenue was up a little. and city expenditures were flat from the previous year, which is a good thing and they're less than revenues. in terms of a sneak peek of 2012, looks like recovery is continuing. we've got a nonseasonally adjusted unemployment rate as of september 2012, it's down to 6.9% from annual average in 2011 of 8.6%. and we've got a gain of almost 10,000 jobs, up 2%, since the beginning of the year. this is employment development department data, their monthly labor force report release. and on that note, i conclude my briefing and entertain any questions or comments you might have. >> commissioner wu.
7:41pm
>> i just wanted to ask on the point that you made that the data will be available electronically, that means sort of in its raw form for the public to use? >> exactly. >> i think it would be great at that time to have some sort of public training. my guess is a lot of people are really interested in neighborhood scale data. so, looking at the map, some of the data is -- you have the boundaries quite large. so, to look -- to help them figure out how to use that to sort of answer the questions people in neighborhoods are looking for. >> okay, yeah. definitely. >> commissioner antonini. >> a couple things i read in a little more depth through most of this. one thing that seemed a little curious to me is a category private household employees, and that number increased a lot from 2002 to 2011. i'm not sure how these are really being categorized. there are many instances where
7:42pm
in a private home you'll employ someone often as an outside contractor, like a gardner and he or she will do a number of different jobs in a given day. they will have many different employers, of course. i'm not quite sure how that does -- those figures are compiled. also in similar ways, people may not be employed exclusively by one person. they might be employed by a lot of different people. so, are we taking those things into account when we bring these numbers up, which seem pretty high to me? >> i think the short answer is yes, it's taken into consideration. i think the measure is -- the first point that that data was contained within the cie sector up until 2009. and, so, it pops out separately. finally edd separated it out. and it's basically a measure of
7:43pm
households who employ people. and i can get some clarification for you about exactly what it covers. caregivers, cooks, cleaners, like that. >> as i say, when you compare these and there are instances where people can work for multiple employers, a case in point is hygienists work for me, and they make work for another dentist or even two other dentists. but more typically, a lot of other jobs, people are single employer more typically than household. so, you may not be comparing apples to apples when you look at the numbers of people. and i think that's something the public has to -- when they read this report, there's a lot more fractionalization in that category, i would think. >> that's true. it's also important to understand that the employment number, the job number we give you is a job number from edd
7:44pm
and it's both part time and full time. and any time there is a second job, somebody has a second job, that's actually counted as another job in the economy. so, you're right. it's important when you try to use this data to understand exactly what's in it, it's very gross measure. more importantly for us, we're sort of following the trend up or down. >> along those same lines, you start going into different professions and job descriptions and you do per capita income. again, it's important to know if someone is, you know, a single employer because oftentimes some of the lower paying jobs will be the fact that you may be getting the data from one of these jobs, not the multiple jobs that are -- because of the nature of the work it lends itself to having different employers. another thing i came up with here was the transportation
7:45pm
piece. and i saw a huge number rider ship on the san bruno lines and historically the geary line was always the heaviest and the judah line for the light rail which remained real heavy, but i'm sort of surprised why the san bruno lines were as heavy as they are and that might be something we really want to look at for the future to see if there's anyway -- i know we'll have the central subway, but that won't necessarily deal with that particular section of the city. most typically that's southeastern san francisco. the only thing i know of that would be close to there might be the caltrain where there's a station at potrero hill and there used to be one at paul. i don't know it's operational any more. there's the bayview station just at the san francisco, san mateo county line. but certainly bears paying attention in trying to figure out what steps can be made to, you know, go with light rail or
7:46pm
some sort of other service that would get people to that area a lot quicker than the likely hour-plus trip it takes it from downtown to get out to some of those areas. those were the things -- and i also was very happy to see, -- again, it's hard to do these categorizations, but $81,000 earnings per worker is a pretty significant amount of money. i know there's a wide discrepancy depending on the types of jobs. but it's probably one of the higher averages per capita or in the united states, i would think. >> yeah, definitely, it reflects the economy we have that we're blessed with both in san francisco and regionally. >> that's a very good report. i plan to spend more time reading it in even more detail and i may have >> very good.
7:47pm
thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the reporting, like san francisco in the region, small part [speaker not understood]. there is the physical growth of the city. there is the population density, which affects much of the decisions we are making here. * tech difficulty there is job density. and the question i have for you is while you are speaking about san francisco population and compared to jobs in san francisco, the number i am interested in is how many san francisco residents are holding the jobs you are describing because that has a direct bearing on housing, particularly affordable housing because lots of the job growth is in new types of jobs. and [speaker not understood] there are lower paying jobs, but that correlation, i think, is of extreme importance for this particular commission and for that matter everybody else. because the growth of the city
7:48pm
and the healthy job housing balances what we are basically tasked to do here. >> absolutely. i don't know that specific number right now, but i've looked at that number over a long -- period of time through my career in the city. in general, as you know, it's about 50%. * . i think it was above 50% in the early '80s and '90s. i think it's dropped down a little less than it was. >> i think in particular, in support of the planning department, to see where job growth is physically as well as sector wise, including who are manning these jobs would be an information piece which i think the city should actually start to put as part of this update because it will resolve and answer many of the criticisms we are getting. we're not building enough affordable housing. it will also help us better understand when we are challenged by regional growth
7:49pm
questions where obviously based on what i'm seeing here, san francisco is already carrying a larger burden or a larger part of the [speaker not understood]. if that fine tuning could be brought forward at some point, i would be very, very interested in those data. >> great. i'll look into that. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, just to clarify. on page 17 you have a table of employment concentration by land use in 2011 and it's by like financial some a north central, southwest. do those terms then correspond to the map 1.1 on page 25 that lays out where these districts are? >> yes. >> okay. and then given that civic center extends quite a bit to the east, do you know if it includes the union square area or is that -- >> civic center is commerce and industry district? >> yes. >> i don't believe it includes union square.
7:50pm
i think that's within the financial district. >> then i'm curious as to why civic center has 27% of the hotel concentration. it seems awfully high to me. >> that would be -- >> it runs along the north part of market, but there's a little jog that -- anyway, if you could -- it's not a big thing. >> no, no, it's not. the way to read that is that that district has 17% of all hotel employment. >> oh, okay, all right. >> that's kind of an odd thing. >> another comment following up on commissioner antonini's observation about the ridership figures. i mean, he's right. san bruno experienced a 99.6% increase. >> right. >> at the same time ingleside
7:51pm
increased by 144.6. and other lines like bryant went down by 32%. number wise it isn't as significant as the other two i mentioned, but there seems to be a lot of increase and decrease fluctuations going on. and it might be interesting to know from muni, you know, why that's happening. >> i'll ask them and get back to you. >> okay. >> commissioner borden. >> yes, that's a good question. what is done with this report? i mean, i love getting this data and information, but does the mta look at this report and make decisions or does it inform, say, their transit projects and the way that they're looking at some of the work that they're implementing? do other departments and agencies, you know, building department, you know, do they review this report, does anything happen with it? >> it goes out as distributed to a small group of folks inside the city and outside the city that have interest in it.
7:52pm
and refer to it during the course of the year. we use it internally in the department. i think some of the other departments would use it, but as you can see from the report itself, it's a particular take on the data that's related to the economy and to land use and land use issues. so, it can inform a certain, you know, arena of analysis and research. but oftentimes it probably would not be sufficient in terms of the types of information it has or the level of detail or the way it's chopped up. to where they address specific project-related issues of our agency. so, i'm sure they're doing their own data analysis and collection. but as kind of a general broad brush statement of the economy and land use in that linkage, it paints that picture and it's used for that purpose. >> if i might add, too, i think the report is -- the data that's embedded in the report is used in different ways by different agencies.
7:53pm
there is a lot of data in here we use for different purposes other than just this report, especially growth data. and, so, that data is often used by other departments and other agencies as well. >> so, it's interesting. so, other -- how do we -- [speaker not understood] for the city, i know. is that person or person that work with the mayor's office of economic development have a chief economic officer or whatever, does that person look at this data and look at some of the other data sets? do we do any modeling? i was just about that in terms of other cities, when fresno redid their general plan, they actually used urban footprint and did digital modeling based on data like this they had where they should do their growth concentration. do we ever do anything like that with our data? >> well, we haven't done any footprint analysis yet. somebody may.
7:54pm
i think to the degree that the data would be useful for somebody's analysis, they would go to it. it has a nice consistent time series, the value it's been creating the last 20 years. most analysis of a project would need additional information that they would probably go out and get on their own. but this would be the first point if we were going to update pieces of the general plan, et cetera, this is one of the documents we would go to. >> and is this open data website so that other sites could actually mine our data and put it -- we have the whole open data initiative. i'm just wondering if this data is up loaded into that so that other people can use it for modeling or running queries. >> well, it hasn't been to date, but that's what we'd like to do. so, we hope to do that this summer, by this summer. >> okay. and i guess -- i know this is much more around like building permits and land use. i guess we don't have like a
7:55pm
tourism sort of data. i guess that puts some other separate -- i know travel has tour simulated data, but we don't include that in our commercial industry? >> not so much, not so much. we have a little of it in the downtown monitoring report in terms of hotel vacancy rates and room rates. but, again, you know, some of this information is provided as kind of a little spice and kind of first window, first glance at that arena. so, we don't collect data extensively and report extensively on tourist industry. >> to me that kind of -- in the future -- i'm not going to criticize the department. i guess i'm actually criticizing the city in not being more comprehensive or collecting all this data which is amazing. but data is not amazing if you don't do anything with it. so, that is kind of the frustration with me. such great analytical capabilities to take data and
7:56pm
do modeling and make smarter decisions. not to put it back in that department, but eversiti that's collecting data, is there a way to bring it together so we can actually see something. so that when the transit project is looking at which routes, you know, they look at first, would they look at san bruno over, you know, someplace in mission bay that could wait. i don't know. but my point is if we had all these different data sets together, you could make those kind of informed decisions. i guess i would just say that i think, you know, i really enjoyed reading it. i think it's a great report. if there is a way to better share this data across the city, it doesn't just sit on a shelf every year, that you spend all this time and nobody actually does anything with it, you know? >> exactly, exactly. i think there are two points to keep in mind. one is that the window on the tourist economy from the commerce and industry report is
7:57pm
that hotel category. that's kind of a way into the tourist industry in terms of a land use and the connection to land use and land use policy, which is what this report was focused on. the second thing, again, this is really a data report. it's not an analytic report. and it gives us a good sort of initial overview of some things. but the department itself has a ton of other data that we use to inform all the analysis we do and other agencies as well, but this is one piece of it. >> great. i love our case reports, but i don't usually see a lot of data in them. so, just sort of kind of just a point. i love that we're doing these reports. i think they're really informative, but they're not really informative until you kind of dig a little deeper. so, to the extent that, you know, director ram and other city agencies can kind of take out key learnings that we've
7:58pm
discovered here and share them would be great. >> definitely. agreed. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. along those same lines, i think that this is a great starting point, but only if we use it practically and use it as a tool to help us make some of our decisions. for example, the whole survey, as was mentioned earlier, the approximately 50% of the jobs in san francisco are held by nonresidents, a little bit more, i think. and i think we need -- the city should undertake focus groups with major employers in san francisco privately as well as their own city employees, which is a large employment group. ucsf and other state or federal and state employees. and have focus groups ask questions, why do you not live in san francisco? is it a cost factor? is it the type of housing that's available doesn't suit
7:59pm
your needs? are the schools not up to your expectations, or you're not assured of a neighborhood school? how about park and rec? but try to consebastianvthv traitv -- concentrate on the factors because if we knew what it was keeping people from living here that work here we would be able to make decisions to incline more people, create housing they want at a cross level, if possible. on the other side of the coin that was not mentioned, it may not be part of this report, but there is a percentage of people who live in san francisco and work outside of san francisco, possibly 10 to 15%. i don't know exact numbers. but this would be a focus group which would be concentrated more on the employers. find out who the employers are. and we pretty much know because a lot of them have big buses that come through san francisco. and find out what factors we could correct to have them move more of their work force here because every

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)